Delhi High Court - Orders
Okoye Ifeanyi.J @John vs State, Nct Of Delhi on 31 May, 2024
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 382/2022
OKOYE IFEANYI.J @JOHN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.S. Kushwaha and Ms. Tanya
Kushwaha, Advs.
versus
STATE, NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for State
with SI Pankaj Parashar PS Spl. Cell
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 31.05.2024 CRL.M.A. 15582/2024 (reduction of surety amount and deposit of the surety amount in cash)
1. The present application has been filed seeking reduction of surety amount as well as seeking permission to deposit the reduced surety amount in cash.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted regular bail vide order dated 14.05.2024 subject to the condition that he shall furnish a Personal Bond in the amount of Rs. 50,000/- and one Surety Bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/CMM/Duty Magistrate.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been able to arrange for the surety bond of Rs. 50,000/-.
4. He submits that the petitioner was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2023 but due to the reason that no surety could be arranged by him to furnish the surety bond, the petitioner is still languishing in jail.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/06/2024 at 00:38:14
5. He prays that the petitioner be allowed to deposit the entire surety amount in cash instead of furnishing the surety bond. In support of his contention the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court dated 02.05.2024 passed in BAIL APPLN. 2645/2022 titled Habibullah Nabi Zada Vs. N.C.B.
6. In the said case this Court relying upon the decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in Nastor Fairirai Ziso Vs. NCB: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1024 had allowed the similarly situated foreign national to deposit the cash amount in lieu of the surety bond. The relevant part of the same reads thus:
"9. Further a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nastor Farirai Ziso (supra) has observed that it would be a negation of the principle of rule of law and violative of constitutional mandate and principles of human rights in case benefit of Section 445 CrPC is denied to a foreign national. It was also observed that an apprehension that a foreign national may flee from justice may still theoretically persists even in a case where surety bond is furnished and the liability of surety is only to the extent of amount mentioned in the surety bond. The relevant observations of the Court reads thus:
"7. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that applicant has contacted Embassy of Zimbabwe multiple times but has not been able to obtain surety and she does not know anyone in this country, who can discharge the obligation of surety.
It may be observed that it would be a negation of the principle of rule of law and violative of constitutional mandate and principles of human rights in case benefit of Section 445 Cr.P.C. is denied to a foreign national merely on the ground that a foreign national is likely to escape, if released on bail. This would lead This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/06/2024 at 00:38:14 to incarceration of accused for an unlimited period till conclusion of trial even despite being granted the discretion of bail by the courts. A mere apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the accused may flee the course of justice, cannot be the sole determinative factor for denying benefit of Section 445 Cr.P.C. without consideration of other circumstances and balancing factors in this regard. This apprehension may still theoretically persist even in a case where surety bond is furnished but the liability of surety is only to the extent of amount mentioned in the surety bond.
The aforesaid apprehension of the accused fleeing from the course of justice was appropriately kept in consideration while passing the orders on bail and imposing the other conditions on the petitioner of informing her address to NCB on being released on bail. The petitioner was also directed to report to NCB office once in a week till conclusion of trial and not to leave the limits of NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the trial court. The passport of the applicant is also stated to have been seized.
Further, denying deposit of cash in lieu of surety in all such cases may become punitive effecting the bifocal interest of justice to the individual involved as well as the society."
10. Section 445 CrPC gives discretion to the court to require a person who is released on bail to be so released by executing a bond with or without sureties.
11. While granting bail to the petitioner this Court had observed that the rigors Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 considering the fact that the petitioner has already spent about 04 years 04 months in custody. Needless to say that once the petitioner has been granted bail by this Court he cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/06/2024 at 00:38:15 period only for the want of a surety bond. There are other bail conditions as well in the order dated 26.02.2024 which can ensure the availability of petitioner to face the trial and to receive the punishment, in the event he is eventually found guilty."
7. In view of the above, the condition of furnishing a Surety Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- is waived and it is directed that petitioner be released on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with cash deposit of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of surety, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
8. Insofar as the remaining conditions mentioned in the previous order dated 14.05.2024 are concerned, the same shall continue to remain in force.
9. With the aforesaid modifications, the application is disposed of.
10. Copy of the order be forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance and information.
11. Order be uploaded on the website of this court.
12. Order dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J MAY 31, 2024 N.S. ASWAL This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/06/2024 at 00:38:15